How do I convert this to an async task?

问题:

Given the following code...

static void DoSomething(int id) {
    Thread.Sleep(50);
    Console.WriteLine(@"DidSomething({0})", id);
}

I know I can convert this to an async task as follows...

static async Task DoSomethingAsync(int id) {
    await Task.Delay(50);
    Console.WriteLine(@"DidSomethingAsync({0})", id);
}

And that by doing so if I am calling multiple times (Task.WhenAll) everything will be faster and more efficient than perhaps using Parallel.Foreach or even calling from within a loop.

But for a minute, lets pretend that Task.Delay() does not exist and I actually have to use Thread.Sleep(); I know in reality this is not the case, but this is concept code and where the Delay/Sleep is would normally be an IO operation where there is no async option (such as early EF).

I have tried the following...

static async Task DoSomethingAsync2(int id) {
    await Task.Run(() => {
        Thread.Sleep(50);
        Console.WriteLine(@"DidSomethingAsync({0})", id);
    });
}

But, though it runs without error, according to Lucien Wischik this is in fact bad practice as it is merely spinning up threads from the pool to complete each task (it is also slower using the following console application - if you swap between DoSomethingAsync and DoSomethingAsync2 call you can see a significant difference in the time that it takes to complete)...

static void Main(string[] args) {
    MainAsync(args).Wait();
}

static async Task MainAsync(String[] args) {

    List<Task> tasks = new List<Task>();
    for (int i = 1; i <= 1000; i++)
        tasks.Add(DoSomethingAsync2(i)); // Can replace with any version
    await Task.WhenAll(tasks);

}

I then tried the following...

static async Task DoSomethingAsync3(int id) {
    await new Task(() => {
        Thread.Sleep(50);
        Console.WriteLine(@"DidSomethingAsync({0})", id);
    });
}

Transplanting this in place of the original DoSomethingAsync, the test never completes and nothing is shown on screen!

I have also tried multiple other variations that either do not compile or do not complete!

So, given the constraint that you cannot call any existing asynchronous methods and must complete both the Thread.Sleep and the Console.WriteLine in an asynchronous task, how do you do it in a manner that is as efficient as the original code?

The objective here for those of you who are interested is to give me a better understanding of how to create my own async methods where I am not calling anybody elses. Despite many searches, this seems to be the one area where examples are really lacking - whilst there are many thousands of examples of calling async methods that call other async methods in turn I cannot find any that convert an existing void method to an async task where there is no call to a further async task other than those that use the Task.Run(() => {} ) method.

回答1:

There are two kinds of tasks: those that execute code (e.g., Task.Run and friends), and those that respond to some external event (e.g., TaskCompletionSource<T> and friends).

What you're looking for is TaskCompletionSource<T>. There are various "shorthand" forms for common situations so you don't always have to use TaskCompletionSource<T> directly. For example, Task.FromResult or TaskFactory.FromAsync. FromAsync is most commonly used if you have an existing *Begin/*End implementation of your I/O; otherwise, you can use TaskCompletionSource<T> directly.

For more information, see the "I/O-bound Tasks" section of Implementing the Task-based Asynchronous Pattern.

The Task constructor is (unfortunately) a holdover from Task-based parallelism, and should not be used in asynchronous code. It can only be used to create a code-based task, not an external event task.

So, given the constraint that you cannot call any existing asynchronous methods and must complete both the Thread.Sleep and the Console.WriteLine in an asynchronous task, how do you do it in a manner that is as efficient as the original code?

I would use a timer of some kind and have it complete a TaskCompletionSource<T> when the timer fires. I'm almost positive that's what the actual Task.Delay implementation does anyway.

回答2:

So, given the constraint that you cannot call any existing asynchronous methods and must complete both the Thread.Sleep and the Console.WriteLine in an asynchronous task, how do you do it in a manner that is as efficient as the original code?

IMO, this is a very synthetic constraint that you really need to stick with Thread.Sleep. Under this constraint, you still can slightly improve your Thread.Sleep-based code. Instead of this:

static async Task DoSomethingAsync2(int id) {
    await Task.Run(() => {
        Thread.Sleep(50);
        Console.WriteLine(@"DidSomethingAsync({0})", id);
    });
}

You could do this:

static Task DoSomethingAsync2(int id) {
    return Task.Run(() => {
        Thread.Sleep(50);
        Console.WriteLine(@"DidSomethingAsync({0})", id);
    });
}

This way, you'd avoid an overhead of the compiler-generated state machine class. There is a subtle difference between these two code fragments, in how exceptions are propagated.

Anyhow, this is not where the bottleneck of the slowdown is.

(it is also slower using the following console application - if you swap between DoSomethingAsync and DoSomethingAsync2 call you can see a significant difference in the time that it takes to complete)

Let's look one more time at your main loop code:

static async Task MainAsync(String[] args) {

    List<Task> tasks = new List<Task>();
    for (int i = 1; i <= 1000; i++)
        tasks.Add(DoSomethingAsync2(i)); // Can replace with any version
    await Task.WhenAll(tasks);

}

Technically, it requests 1000 tasks to be run in parallel, each supposedly to run on its own thread. In an ideal universe, you'd expect to execute Thread.Sleep(50) 1000 times in parallel and complete the whole thing in about 50ms.

However, this request is never satisfied by the TPL's default task scheduler, for a good reason: thread is a precious and expensive resource. Moreover, the actual number of concurrent operations is limited to the number of CPUs/cores. So in reality, with the default size of ThreadPool, I'm getting 21 pool threads (at peak) serving this operation in parallel. That is why DoSomethingAsync2 / Thread.Sleep takes so much longer than DoSomethingAsync / Task.Delay. DoSomethingAsync doesn't block a pool thread, it only requests one upon the completion of the time-out. Thus, more DoSomethingAsync tasks can actually run in parallel, than DoSomethingAsync2 those.

The test (a console app):

// https://stackoverflow.com/q/21800450/1768303

using System;
using System.Collections.Generic;
using System.Diagnostics;
using System.Threading;
using System.Threading.Tasks;

namespace Console_21800450
{
    public class Program
    {
        static async Task DoSomethingAsync(int id)
        {
            await Task.Delay(50);
            UpdateMaxThreads();
            Console.WriteLine(@"DidSomethingAsync({0})", id);
        }

        static async Task DoSomethingAsync2(int id)
        {
            await Task.Run(() =>
            {
                Thread.Sleep(50);
                UpdateMaxThreads();
                Console.WriteLine(@"DidSomethingAsync2({0})", id);
            });
        }

        static async Task MainAsync(Func<int, Task> tester)
        {
            List<Task> tasks = new List<Task>();
            for (int i = 1; i <= 1000; i++)
                tasks.Add(tester(i)); // Can replace with any version
            await Task.WhenAll(tasks);
        }

        volatile static int s_maxThreads = 0;

        static void UpdateMaxThreads()
        {
            var threads = Process.GetCurrentProcess().Threads.Count;
            // not using locks for simplicity
            if (s_maxThreads < threads)
                s_maxThreads = threads;
        }

        static void TestAsync(Func<int, Task> tester)
        {
            s_maxThreads = 0;
            var stopwatch = new Stopwatch();
            stopwatch.Start();

            MainAsync(tester).Wait();

            Console.WriteLine(
                "time, ms: " + stopwatch.ElapsedMilliseconds +
                ", threads at peak: " + s_maxThreads);
        }

        static void Main()
        {
            Console.WriteLine("Press enter to test with Task.Delay ...");
            Console.ReadLine();
            TestAsync(DoSomethingAsync);
            Console.ReadLine();

            Console.WriteLine("Press enter to test with Thread.Sleep ...");
            Console.ReadLine();
            TestAsync(DoSomethingAsync2);
            Console.ReadLine();
        }

    }
}

Output:

Press enter to test with Task.Delay ...
...
time, ms: 1077, threads at peak: 13

Press enter to test with Thread.Sleep ...
...
time, ms: 8684, threads at peak: 21

Is it possible to improve the timing figure for the Thread.Sleep-based DoSomethingAsync2? The only way I can think of is to use TaskCreationOptions.LongRunning with Task.Factory.StartNew:

You should think twice before doing this in any real-life application:

static async Task DoSomethingAsync2(int id)
{
    await Task.Factory.StartNew(() =>
    {
        Thread.Sleep(50);
        UpdateMaxThreads();
        Console.WriteLine(@"DidSomethingAsync2({0})", id);
    }, TaskCreationOptions.LongRunning | TaskCreationOptions.PreferFairness);
}

// ...

static void Main()
{
    Console.WriteLine("Press enter to test with Task.Delay ...");
    Console.ReadLine();
    TestAsync(DoSomethingAsync);
    Console.ReadLine();

    Console.WriteLine("Press enter to test with Thread.Sleep ...");
    Console.ReadLine();
    TestAsync(DoSomethingAsync2);
    Console.ReadLine();
}

Output:

Press enter to test with Thread.Sleep ...
...
time, ms: 3600, threads at peak: 163

The timing gets better, but the price for this is high. This code asks the task scheduler to create a new thread for each new task. Do not expect this thread to come from the pool:

Task.Factory.StartNew(() =>
{
    Thread.Sleep(1000);
    Console.WriteLine("Thread pool: " + 
        Thread.CurrentThread.IsThreadPoolThread); // false!
}, TaskCreationOptions.LongRunning).Wait();